71. WP.29 agreed that agenda items 5.1 to 5.5 should be considered by AC.3.

112. AC.3 also considered WP.29-167-12 from MEMA/CLEPA/JAPIA. The representative of the three organizations made suggestions to define the programme of work, encouraged Contracting Parties to use domestic regulatory processes to communicate and share information for the sake of full transparency and public participation, such as “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” in the United States of America. She also reiterated a recommendation to WP.29 and AC.3 to establish basic criteria to identify priorities to address the development of UN GTRs and identify possible barriers in developing them.

118. AC.3 decided to keep WP.29-167-12, WP.29-167-24 and WP.29-167-30 on the agenda and to form a drafting group with representatives of OICA, CLEPA/MEMA/JAPIA, the Chair of AC.3 and other interested parties, to review the trilateral white paper.

78. The representative of the United States of America introduced informal document WP.29-166-17. He explained that the document intended to improve the implementation of the 1998 Agreement and not to amend it. To that end, he listed several initial ideas for the Forum’s consideration. The representatives of EU and Japan invited all stakeholders and Contracting Parties to provide comments on the document. The representative of EU further added that some of the suggestions in the document could be implemented instantaneously. That would be a first step to improve collective actions for the application of the Agreement. The representative from India underlined the role and the interest of her country in the Agreement and proposed to share their experience in implementing gtrs in national law. The representative of CLEPA/JAPIA/MEMA showed support for initiative to improve the good functioning of the 1998 Agreement. The representative of the United States of America volunteered to receive comments on the document so as to provide a revised version at the November 2015 session of AC.3. WP.29 decided that the document would be further discussed at AC.3 under item 13.

99. AC.3 continued discussion on the Trilateral White Paper introduced by the European Union, Japan and the United States of America. The representative of India expressed her support for the efforts to improve the implementation of the 1998 Agreement. She added that India would be pleased to share any data or experiences, especially in the area of WLTP. She noted that, due to resource limitations, participation in all working groups was difficult, and a detailed survey assessing priority areas, focus and resource allocation of Contracting Parties might be worthwhile. She stated that India would be ready to assist in this effort. The representative of IMMA referred to the ongoing work on GTRs in the IWG on EPPR — further to the three existing motorcycle GTRs — and emphasized the importance of implementing GTRs. IMMA would provide a more detailed statement at the November WP.29 session. The representative of OICA also expressed their support for the paper and added that the 1998 Agreement was of great importance to the industry. He suggested that improving the functioning of the 1998 Agreement could be a dynamic process that could include a critical review of the Agreement on a periodic basis. The representative of Australia noted the option in the Trilateral paper to focus on prioritising items added to the programme of work on the basis of potential safety and/or environmental benefits.  He underlined this importance given the obligations of Contracting Parties under the 1998 Agreement to implement UN GTRs into domestic regulations. The representative of Germany had two suggestions to improve the document: (i) the current programme of work mentioned in the document could be updated to correspond with the latest status, (ii) a reference to the status of the agreement (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1073/Rev.13) could be added. The representative of the United States of America requested that all comments on the document be sent to him in writing. He would then incorporate all the comments into another document. AC.3 was encouraged to review the document and discuss it with national administrations. AC.3 decided to establish the document as a formal document for submission to AC.3 and WP.29. The proposal of OICA to review the 1998 Agreement every five years would be discussed further at the November session of WP.29.